And each time, as with eight other cases that year, police Chief Gil Kerlikowske let the officers off the hook or reduced charges against them -- without explanation, according a report by a review board that oversees the Seattle Police Department's internal affairs unit, or Office of Professional Accountability.

In the wake of the report's release Monday, another civic group called for Kerlikowske's ouster.

The report blasts Kerlikowske for failing to explain in writing when he rejects the disciplinary recommendations of the head of his internal affairs department. City officials had promised such transparency years ago, the board noted.

It's among several ways the chief can "circumvent the OPA Director's critical role in police accountability," the board said in its report, which was combined with a separate review of a single controversial drug bust case from earlier this year. A draft of that review was leaked to the news media two weeks ago.

After that draft became public, local NAACP leaders called for Kerlikowske's resignation. On Monday, the Minority Executive Directors Coalition of King County -- a coalition of groups advocating for social services, health, education and economic development -- also demanded the chief step down. However, Seattle police watchdog Harriet Walden said Kerlikowske should not be pushed out.

Meanwhile, Seattle politicians are scrambling to position themselves as agents of reform to police accountability.

Regarding the report overall, McOmber said: "Apparently, the biggest bone of contention here is that there was no written explanations for why he differed in a handful of cases with the OPA's recommendations. And that's an issue that the mayor's (commission) is very likely to look at."

The combined report released Monday attempts to put issues raised in the January case within the context of longstanding concerns the board and others have raised over Seattle's police disciplinary system.

Sgt. Rich O'Neill, the Seattle Police Officers' Guild president, said he sees the report as a product of Licata's political agenda to expand civilian oversight of the Police Department and strip some administrative power from the chief.

In 1999, then-Mayor Paul Schell and then-Chief Norm Stamper adopted an "Accountability Action Plan" that directed the chief to explain his decisions "for good cause and in writing," according to the report.

And yet, that promise has "apparently been abandoned by the present chief, with predictable consequences," says the report, which calls for reforms to help "restore the integrity of OPA investigations, civilian oversight, and the public's confidence in the Seattle Police Department."

In the 11 cases from 2003, "we cannot determine his reasons for these reversals, leaving the civilian (internal affairs director) effectively overruled in these cases by simple fiat," reads the report

Explanations from the chief would bolster the public's trust, said Barbara Attard, past president of the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement and an independent police auditor in San Jose.

"If there's not anything in writing as to why the chief has overruled the OPA director, I think that really undermines the (public's) confidence in the whole process," she said.

The report also says the system allows for the chief to drag out investigations beyond the 180-day deadline for discipline.

Attard noted that that was a very tight deadline. California has a 365-day deadline "and sometimes that's hard to meet," Attard said.

The review board also reported the chief can directly interfere with an ongoing investigation -- and that he had done so in at least one case.

Regarding that case, a controversial January drug bust, the board presented its finalized review of Kerlikowske's actions. In it, the board criticized the chief for directing "extraordinary measures" to bolster drug charges against a Seattle man -- charges that were dropped after a video from a nearby security camera raised questions about the officers' conduct.

The board additionally accused Kerlikowske of hindering its work. In June 2004, the board requested information on all closed cases from 2003 -- information the board is "plainly entitled to" under city ordinance. And yet the chief resisted, the report said. While he eventually gave in, the board reported it didn't get some of the information until August 2005. In the meantime, the department stopped cooperating with the board's routine reviews, the report says.

Last week, Nickels and Licata each announced plans to convene special committees to review the city's police disciplinary system. Nickels announced the membership of his 11- member commission Friday; Licata still is working on his.

Both have indicated their committees would explore whether the chief should explain his decisions in writing, as well as broader issues about holding police accountable for misdeeds.

Licata said he is still mulling whether to also propose some changes to the system immediately, or to wait for his task force to first consider the matter.

"People are going to feel very frustrated if newspapers continue to publish stories that raise the question, 'What do we do?' and our response is, 'We'll get back to you next year,' " Licata said.

Without changes, the review board predicted, the problems will worsen.

"Unless and until current SPD leadership addresses the very real problems revealed by this investigation, recurring misconduct is likely, leading to a decline of public confidence in the department," it reported.

But the guild would fight any effort to require the chief to articulate his reasoning for disagreeing with the OPA's findings, unless it could be done in general terms, O'Neill said. In many cases, officers will explain to the chief that personal stressors, such as a divorce, contributed to a poor decision and that it would be unlikely to happen again, O'Neill said.

The chief also considers other factors, such as the officer's past record, his explanation for what happened, or whether OPA's investigation and recommendations would hold up on appeal, O'Neill said.

"Why do we assume the OPA director gets it right? Or why do we assume the OPA captain gets it right? Why do we have so much faith in their decision-making, but we don't have that same faith in the chief's?" O'Neill asked.